On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:03 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:34 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
By the way, the GPLv3 AGPL-friendly clause is only friendly to AGPLv3, so what happens when AGPLv4 or AGPLv3.1 comes out? Oops?
I guess that is on purpose, and I don't think we will ever see AGPLv3.x before GPLv3.x as they are in essence the same license with an added requirement. [...]
Unless the added requirement is shown to be fluffed. Needing a new GPL to fix a problem in AGPL's AGPL-specific parts seems like a bug.
That's why the FSF promotes the "or later" clause, just because it makes it easier to upgrade if you want later, without the need to re-license.
Yes, that one thing that makes it so surprising that FSF didn't use an "or later" clause in the licence!
So if a .1 of either licence appears, GPL/AGPL-mixes have to wait until all constituent projects have bumped to .1 - like the current GPL/LGPL 2/3 messes, but possibly worse.
This is one reason why AGPL will not be too much widespread, luckily.
Simo.